LexPAPAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PAPAIAH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
AUGUST 23, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 39(b) and 46.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Weaker Sections of
C Society-Duty of State to prevent exploitation-Right to economic justice
is a fundamental right.
Kamataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Land5) Act, 1978 : Sections 4 and 5 .
. D
Mysore Land Revenue Code: Rule 43(8).
Contract Act, 1872: Section 23.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Restriction on transfer of
land by Respondents 4 and 5 assigned five acres of agricultural land under
E Rule 43 (8)-Appellant purchasing land from assignees after the expiry of ten
years from the date of assignment by the Govemmen~Application filed by
assignees for restoration of land allowed by competent authority and con-
firmed by Appellate authority-Appeal preferred before Supreme Court-Held
alienation made by responden~Assignees was voi~Assignment of land
having been made in furtherance of constitutional goal, any alienation, in its
F contravention, would be not only in violation of the constitutional policy but
also opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Ac~As the
alienation was void purchaser does not get any valid right, title or interest
thereunder-l'lea of adverse possession against the State held not main-
tainable-Assignee was not estopped from challenging the sale as there is no
G estoppel against the statute.
KT. Huchegowda v.Deputy Commissioner& Ors., [1994) 3 SCC 536,
held inapplicable.
R Chandevarappa Etc .. Etc. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. Etc. Etc.,
H [1995) S SCALE 620, relied on.
206
PAPAIAH. v. STATE
11)7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11933 of A
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.90 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A No. 494 of 1990.
P.R. Ramasesh, S.K. Kulkarni and Surya Kant for the Appellant.
B
Kapil Sibal, V. Laxminarayan and E.C. Vidyasagar for the Respon-
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
c
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
of Karnataka dated 19.9.1990 made in WA No. 494/90. The admitted facts D
are that the respondents 4 and 5, by name Doddaramaih and Chik-
karamaiah, sons of late Gurappa of Bangalore were granted five acres of
agricultural land under Rule 43 (8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code on
February 13, 1940 for use and enjoyment of the Government land. Rule
43(8) reads as under :
E
"Occupancies granted to applicants belonging to Depressed Clas-
ses under Rule 43(5) above and those granted by Government free
of upset price or reduced upset price to poor and landless people
of other communities or to religious charitable institutions, shall
not be alienated and the grantees shall execute Mutchalikas in the F
form prescribed by Government. This shall not, however, prevent
lands granted to Depressed classes under Rule 43(5) being ac-
cepted as security for any. loan which they may wish to obtain from
Government or from a Co-operative Society for the bonafide
purposes of improving the land".
G
A reading of the said rule would indicate that with a view to augment
the economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other weaker sections of the society, Government may assign the land to
them or to cooperative societies composed of them. It is not in dispute that
the appellant had purchased the land from the assignees under a registered H
'A
B
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
sale deed on December 19, 1958. The Karnataka Legislature enacted
Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 {for short, the "Act") declaring alienation by
the assignee-Schedules Castes and Schedules Tribes, as void and inopera-
tive. Procedure has been prescribed for restoration of the lands to the
assignees or if they are not available, the land resumed be assigned to
eligible persons from those classes. In furtherance thereof, the respondents
4 & 5 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act before the
competent authority on April 22, 1985 for restoration of the land. The
competent authority allowed the application which was confirmed on ap-
peal and, therefore, the writ petitions came to be dismissed. Thus this
C appeal by special leave.
D.
Sri P.R. RExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.